1

The Days of Genesis: An Old-Earth View

Paul Copan

(Written in dialogue with Dr. John MacArthur, who takes the young-earth view)
Areopagus Journal 5/2 (March-April 2005): 15, 17, 19.
Posted with permission from Areopagus Journal.

God’s kingdom and our Christian witness to the world are far weightier and grander matters than
how long it took for God to create. That God created is more critical than the duration of creation.
Alas, the young-earth versus old-earth debate has often been ugly and mean-spirited, and I (an old-
earther) hope to build—not burn—bridges of understanding, and I readily affirm the Christian
commitment of young-earthers.

First, I’ll set forth important hermeneutical perspectives. Second, I’ll point out some scientific
evidences for an ancient universe. Third, I’ll make the case that faithfully interpreting Genesis 1-2
with a high view of Scripture doesn’t require taking “day” as a 24-hour period. Genesis 1-2 allows
for greater flexibility of interpretation than what some young-earthers claim. This flexibility can
easily accommodate the weighty evidence for the universe’s antiquity.

Hermeneutics and Authority

For much of my life, I’d believed in a recent universe, being suspicious of any “billions of years”
talk. But after reading scientifically-trained authors—Christian and non-Christian with no apparent
axe to grind—who repeatedly spoke of an ancient cosmos, I investigated further. To my surprise,
not only did many young-earth “evidences” in which I had taken scientific refuge come crashing
down, I found that most such “evidences” were highly selective, skewed, outdated, or otherwise
problematic. I would have been happy to find solid support for a young universe (and I’m still open
to persuasion), but I regularly found it to be shaky at best. The more I have studied the Scriptures
and the relevant, wide-ranging scientific data, the more reasonably I can conclude that (1) the
universe is billions of years old and (2) Scripture accords nicely with this evidence. The breath-
taking splendor of God’s creation isn’t diminished if the process took billions of years rather than
six 24-hour days. The heavens still declare God’s glory.

I am firmly committed to Scripture’s authority, but the difference between John MacArthur and me
is hermeneutical. One must distinguish between Scripture’s authority and our interpretations of
Scripture. As Francis Schaeffer (incidentally an old-earther) wrote, “We must not claim, on the one
hand, that science is unnecessary or meaningless, nor on the other hand, that the extensions [i.e.,
interpretations] we make from Scripture are absolutely accurate or that these extensions have the
same validity as the statements of Scripture itself.”i John Calvin astutely observed that students of
Scripture can make the Bible appear silly to the scientifically-minded by insisting on pressing
certain aspects of biblical language as literal. For example, Genesis 1:16’s observational language
refers to the sun and the moon as “the two great lights.” Some of Calvin’s contemporaries had
interpreted this to mean that the moon must be bigger than Saturn, which is false. However,
Calvin asserts that Moses simply addresses the common man—without need for scientific
exactness (as with our use of “sunrise” and “sunset”).ii

The two “books” of God’s self-revelation—His Word and His world—aren’t ultimately contradictory.
On the one hand, Scripture should not be held hostage to certain scientists’ pontifications (e.g.,
Christians across the centuries have held to creation out of nothing even when the empirical
2

evidence wasn’t as clear as it is today).iii On the other, scientific discoveries have at times
demanded that humans adjust their interpretations of Scripture (regarding the earth’s
immovability, its being on foundations, its spatial centrality in the cosmos, etc.). Theologians and
scientists can learn from each other.

Clearly, Genesis 1-3 is historical (e.g., Adam and Eve as the first couple who were tempted and
sinned: Lk. 3:38; Ac. 17:26; Rom. 5:12-19; 1Tim. 2:13-14; 1 Cor. 11:8-9; 15:21-2; 2 Cor. 11:3);
however, it has a number of non-literal/metaphorical elements as well (some evangelical exegetes
consider the early chapters of Genesis “poetical-historical”). Thus we must not over-literalize
Genesis 1-3 given important theological/literary motifs: God’s “dividing,” which foreshadows
priestly responsibilities in the tabernacle (Lev. 10:10; 11:46), metaphor (God “breathed” and
“walked”), poetic parallelism (1:27; 2:2), poetically arranged strophes with “echo” and “re-echo
(“God said”/“and there was”), etc.

Unfortunately, many young-earthers have accused old-earthers of not taking the biblical text
“literally” (an often ill-defined, inconsistently-used term that fails to take genres and important
literary features into consideration)—or of compromising with naturalistic evolutionists. But many
careful evangelical exegetes such as Gleason Archer, Craig Blomberg, Walter Kaiser, Craig Keener,
Derek Kidner, Kenneth Mathews, Vern Poythress, Bruce Waltke (to name a few) have observed
from the text itself that the word “day [yôm]” in Genesis 1-2 hardly entails a 24-hour time-period;
the text is more generous than this.

Furthermore, another view to consider is the “literary framework” view, in which the author isn’t
interested in a specific chronological or scientific account, but speaks literarily/theologically,
underscoring the fact of God’s creation.iv First, God forms (days 1-3—light separating from
darkness; water above and below separated; earth’s vegetation) and then fills His creation (days 4-
6: lights in the heavens, birds/fish, and animals/humans). At any rate, the biblical text does allow
for greater flexibility regarding the “days” of Genesis. But before any such analysis, what is the
scientific support for an old universe?

The Antiquity of Universe

I won’t expand much upon the evidences for an ancient earth/universe, which are abundant.v I
shall basically list them. There is (1) the rate of the universe’s expansion (red-shifting of spectral
light from stars) as well as (2) the rate of cooling from initially high temperatures, which support an
ancient universe. In addition, consider (3) the rate of stellar burning and (4) the arrival of light
from distant galaxies.vi There is (5) the phenomenon of varves (two-toned sediment layers reflecting
annual change of seasons); these layers number in the millions—and thus millions of years. Note
(6) the lengthy process of continental shifting (plate tectonics), in which land masses move
slowly—about 2-5 centimeters per year. (There is an almost perfect jigsaw-puzzle fit between the
eastern coast of North America and the northwestern coast of Africa as well as eastern South
America with Western Africa; other land masses also fit together well.) This process—which
includes the formation of mountains (e.g., the Himalayas) that were once on the ocean floor
embedded with layers of marine fossils—takes many million years. (7) Coral reefs grow only a few
centimeters per year in the best of conditions—again, a process that would take millions of years to
produce today’s reefs. There have been (8) at least four major ice ages, often with intervening
subtropical conditions—a process taking millions of years; this can be accounted for by the earth’s
tilt that varies by a few degrees approximately every 41,000 years (and sometimes in combination
with the earth’s changing from an elliptical orbit to a more circular one every 100,000 years or so).
3

(9) Detecting radioactive decay through various corroborating or cross-checking methods supports
an ancient earth, not a young one. (10) The fossil record indicates that animal death occurred
before human beings existed; with the fall, human death entered into the world. (Contrary to what
young-earthers claim, Rom. 5:12 simply doesn’t assert that all death [e.g., plant death] came into
the world with Adam’s sin.) What’s more, Scripture indicates that the food chain was created by
God—something young-earthers don’t adequately address. God’s original creation includes
carnivores (Job 38:39-41; 39:28-9; 41:1,10,14; Ps. 104:21,29). There’s both beauty—as well as
bloodiness—in the world God made.vii

The Days of Genesis 1-2

Before arguing for a greater flexibility of interpretation regarding the word “day” in Genesis 1-2, I
point out that even if one takes Genesis 1’s days as 24-hour periods, one can still believe in an
ancient universe, including ice ages, animal death, and dinosaur extinction (e.g., Old Testament
scholar John Sailhamer holds just such a view—“textual creationism”).viii

As for the meaning of “day” in Gen. 1, Beeson Divinity School’s Kenneth Mathews correctly
observes: “there are many indications that ‘day’ in its customary sense may not be intended.”ix
Here are some: (1) Those who take a young-earth view typically claim that the ordinal (e.g.,
second, third) with yôm (day) is always a literal 24-hour day. But this isn’t so. Take the restoration
passage of Hosea 6:2: “[The LORD] will raise us up on the third day”—a phrase identical to Gen
1:13; this case presents a clear exception. Interestingly, Luke 13:32 reads,x “Go and tell [Herod],
‘Behold, I [Jesus] cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third [day] I
reach my goal.” Clearly something other than a 24-hour day is in mind here (see also Ps. 90:4,
where human life is like a “day [yôm]”; 2 Pet. 3:8). (2) The phrase “day one [yôm echad]” in Gen.
1:5 is also found in Zech. 14:7, referring to “the day of the LORD”—clearly not a 24-hour day. (3)
Genesis 2:4 reads “in the day [yôm] the LORD God made earth and heaven”—referring to the entire
act of creation. So within the text of Genesis 1-2 itself, we have clear indication that “day” can
mean more than 24 hours. (4) “Evening” is mentioned before “morning” throughout Gen. 1; this
is an unusual rendering and suggests a sacramental and symbolic usage that points forward to
Israel’s celebration of holy “days and months and years” (Gen. 1:14; Sabbath and Passover began
the evening before). (5) If the sun was not made until the fourth day, as young-earthers claim, then
why think that the preceding days were 24-hours in length? (6) “Evening”/“morning” isn’t
mentioned on the seventh day, suggesting God’s complete rest from this initial creation is still
continuing to this day (cp. Heb. 4:4: “God rested on the seventh day from all His works”)—a very
long “day” of rest! If this final day can be more flexibly understood, then why can’t the others? (7)
Some say that Exodus 20:9-11 (“in six days the LORD made heaven and earth . . . and rested the
seventh day”) demonstrates a literal 24-hour view of “day” in Gen. 1. However, the focus is on a
divine pattern being set for humans to follow, but this doesn’t mean that all comparisons are
equal. Consider 1 Jn. 3:16: Christ’s (unique atoning) laying-down-of-life sets a pattern for our
(repeated, non-atoning) laying-down-of life for our brethren. Also, note that the fourth
commandment is repeated in Ex. 31:12-17, which adds that God “was refreshed”—which isn’t to
be taken literally (cp. Isa. 40:28). Why insist that “day” be taken as such? (8) The third day calls
for a lengthy process of plants to grow, produce seeds, and yield fruit (Gen. 1:11-12); a 24-hour
interpretation would require extremely rapid plant development, as in time-lapse photography in
which a seed grows to full flower in seconds! (9) The sixth day also requires more than 24-hours:
Adam names thousands of animals, gets acquainted with their mating habits, realizes he’s alone,
etc., suggesting more than just 24 hours. And Adam’s cry at Eve’s arrival suggests significant
passage of time—“At last! [happa`am]” (2:23). Note the same phrase used at Leah’s
4

“vindication” in childbearing “at last” (29:34-5); Jacob’s finally leaving Laban after fourteen years
(30:20); Jacob’s finally departing this life having seen Joseph (46:30). (10) If Gen. 1-2 is a
historico-poetic genre, then it is unfair to make unwarranted literary demands upon it (such as the
ordinal + yôm configuration = 24 hours). Think of how wrong-headed it would be to insist that
Revelation’s numbers be literalized for similar reasons, when this genre (apocalyptic-prophetic) is
highly symbolic.

For these and other reasons, a high view of Scripture does not require holding to 24-hour days in
Gen. 1; there is greater flexibility, which leaves wide open the possibility of an old-earth view.
Furthermore, other plausible approaches—such as Sailhamer’s “textual creationism” (“day” as 24
hours) or the literary framework hypothesis—allow for an ancient universe as well.

Paul Copan
Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy and Ethics
Palm Beach Atlantic University

i
Genesis in Space and Time (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1972), 36.
ii
John Calvin, Genesis, repr., trans. John King (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 86-87.
iii
Paul Copan and William Lane Craig, Creation Out of Nothing: A Biblical, Philosophical, and
Scientific Exploration (Grand Rapids/Leicester: Apollos, 2004).
iv
This is briefly described in Greg Boyd and Paul Eddy, Across the Spectrum (Grand Rapids: Baker,
2002), 67-73.
v
I draw upon various astronomers, astrophysicists, geologists, etc. such as J. Gribbin, In the
Beginning (Boston: Little, Brown, 1993); John D. Barrow and Joseph Silk, The Left Hand of
Creation (New York: Oxford, 1993, 2nd ed.); Davis A. Young, Christianity and the Age of the Earth
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982; repr. Artisan Pub.)—to name a few.
vi
Light from distant stars becomes visible to humans (Tycho Brahe’s 1572 starburst; Ian Shelton’s
[Feb. 1987] observing a supernova 160-170,000 light years away), which goes against
“appearance of age” idea.
vii
Creation’s goodness doesn’t imply perfection or completion. On animal death, see Paul Copan,
“That’s Just Your Interpretation” (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), chaps. 16-17 and “How Do You
Know You’re Not Wrong?” (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), chap. 9.
viii
Genesis Unbound (Sisters, Ore.: Multnomah, 1996).
ix
Genesis 1-11:26 NAC (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1996), 149.
x
Though the Gospels were written in Greek, Jesus’ originally spoke in Aramaic.